Dependency and function

The subject of a sentence is the NP that is immediately dominated by S.

The predicate of a sentence is the VP that is immediately dominated by S.

This definition of subject in terms of the phrase marker will confirm that the chiropodist is not the subject of [32]. Here’s the phrase marker.

[34]

In [34] there are two NPs, the pianist and the chiropodist, but only the first of those is immediately dominated by S. So the NP the pianist is the subject. The NP the chiropodist is not immediately dominated by S because the VP node intervenes between it and S. Hence, by the above definition of subject, it is not the subject.

As mentioned, categories are discussed in more detail in the next chapter.

What’s important here is for you to see how the parts of a sentence can be expected to function in relation to each other. Without the idea of subject func-tion and predicate funcfunc-tion, it would be difficult to know where to begin the analysis of a sentence. In giving an analysis of a sentence, you should always sat-isfy yourself that any constituent you wish to say is contained in the sentence has a well-defined function and meaning. This goes not only for the immediate con-stituents of S but for all concon-stituents. So I will generalise the discussion a little.

In discussing the functions of constituents, we need some terminology to describe relationships between them. When two constituent nodes are immedi-ately dominated by the same single node, as is the case with B and C in [35],

[35]

they are said to be sisters. As you might guess, since B and C are sisters in [35], they are the daughters of A, the node that immediately dominates them. And A is the mother of B and C. Fanciful perhaps – but easily remembered!

It is the relationship of sister that concerns us here. sister constituents are represented at the same level of structure in phrase markers. Constituents have their functions in respect of their sister constituents. Thus, in each of the sentences considered so far, the subject NP and the predicate VP are sisters and

as such are represented at the same level of structure. The NP (e.g. the ducks) has its subject function in respect of its sister, the VP (e.g. are paddling away).

And the VP has its predicate function in respect of the subject NP. Notice that subject and predicate are dependent on each other. An NP only functions as a subject in the presence of a sister VP, and a VP only functions as predicate in the presence of a sister NP. The two of them together are required to form a com-plete sentence; neither can be omitted in a comcom-plete and well-formed sentence.

They are both obligatory in the structure of sentences.

Anticipating later chapters, let’s take a first look at the other main functions.

There are three general concepts here. These are head, and the two functions that other elements have in relation to heads, modifier and complement.

■

^Head

The head of a phrase is the element that the phrase is centred on. It is the one essential – or obligatory – element in that phrase. If you think of the phrase as a solar system, then the head is the sun. Everything else in the phrase revolves around and depends on the head. Just as a system is a solar system because it’s centred on a sun, so a phrase is Noun Phrase because it’s centred on a Noun.

Similarly for Verb Phrase. So: it is the category of the head of a phrase that deter-mines the category of the phrase.

■

The modiﬁer~head relation

Consider the structure I assigned to their rather dubious jokes in Exercise 3 of Chapter 1. (Since I am concentrating on the relationship between constituency and function, I’ve omitted the category labels which would be required for a complete analysis of the phrase.)

[36]

Make a list of all the sister relationships in that phrase.

There are three sister relationships in [36]: (1) between their and PHRASE-b (rather dubious jokes), (2) between PHRASE-c (rather dubious) and jokes, and (3) between rather and dubious. The relation that holds between these sister constituents is of the same general kind, that of modification.

DEPENDENCY AND FUNCTION

To begin at the lowest level of structure, rather has its function in respect of its sister dubious. It specifies the degree of the dubiousness, telling us how dubious the jokes are. Rather is dependent on dubious, in the sense that it is only present because dubious is. Were we to omit dubious, rather would be left without any function, and the omission would result in an ill-formed string (*their rather jokes). Notice, however, that dubious is in no way dependent on rather. We can omit rather and still be left with a perfectly good phrase (their dubious jokes). This, then, is a one-way function/dependency. Rather depends on dubious but not vice-versa. This function is called modification. The func-tion of rather is to modify dubious.

What about the function of dubious itself ? You may have guessed – from the above discussion of heads – that dubious is the head of rather dubious. I hope this seems right to you in the light of what you now know about heads. Whatever the category of dubious, that’s going to be the category of the phrase rather dubious.

(For information – but don’t worry about it now if you didn’t already know – dubious is an adjective.)

The big difference between modifiers and heads, then, is this: in the structure of a phrase, modifiers are optional; the head is the obligatory element.

A modifier~head relation also holds, at the next (higher) level of structure, between the whole phrase rather dubious and the word jokes. Rather dubious specifies the character of the jokes. Again, rather dubious as a whole is a depen-dent modifier of jokes but not vice-versa. Rather dubious is optional since it could be omitted (giving their jokes), but jokes – the head of the phrase – could not be omitted (*their rather dubious).

Rather dubious jokes, then, forms a phrase but it does not tell us which rather dubious jokes are being referred to. It is the function of their to specify this. At this highest level of structure in the phrase, their is dependent on rather dubious jokes. Since their is dependent on rather dubious jokes but not vice versa, I shall treat the relation between them as yet another example of the modifier~head relation.

A useful way of picturing the functional relations in [33] is given in [37], where the direction of the dependencies is indicated by an arrow, and the func-tions by M (Modifier) and H (Head):

[37]

As [37] shows, not just words but also phrases can function as heads and as modifiers.

Now that the functions of these constituents have been specified, [36] should appear as a natural analysis. Compare it with the incorrect (*) analyses in [38]

and [39]:

[38]

[39]

Both these analyses should now strike you as odd. Their and rather both belong to categories that have modifying functions. They cannot themselves function as the head of a phrase. So they can’t have their functions in respect of each other – they can’t both be heads and can’t modify each other. In a phrase, there can only be one head. But in [38], their and rather are represented as sisters, forming a phrase. The fact that this supposed phrase (*their rather) doesn’t have a well-defined meaning – and couldn’t be the answer to any question – is thus quite predictable. Notice that, since constituents function in respect of their sister con-stituents, rather in [38] is completely cut off from the element (dubious) that it wants to modify.

[39] is marginally better, but still wrong. Before reading further, decide for yourself in the light of the preceding discussion exactly in what respect it is better than [38], and exactly in what respect it is still not as good as [36].

[39] is better than [38] in that their is correctly represented as a (modifying) sister of PHRASE-b (rather dubious jokes). [39] is still wrong, though, because it represents rather and dubious jokes as sisters, so that rather is now modifying, not just dubious, but the phrase dubious jokes. But we saw earlier that rather is dependent on (and belongs with) just dubious. Rather has to do with the dubiousness of the jokes, not the jokes themselves. The original analysis of PHRASE-b (given in [36]) correctly predicts that the string rather dubious jokes corresponds in meaning with the phrase given as [40]:

[40] jokes which are rather dubious.

DEPENDENCY AND FUNCTION

By contrast, the oddity of PHRASE-b in [39] is due to its predicting that rather dubious jokes corresponds in meaning with the ungrammatical [41]:

[41] *dubious jokes which are rather.

By the way, dubious jokes is another example of a word-sequence that forms a phrasal constituent in some contexts but not in others. We have seen that, in the context of rather, we need to relate rather and dubious to each other before relating the whole phrase rather dubious to jokes. So dubious and jokes don’t form a constituent in the context of rather. In the absence of rather (or any other modifier of dubious), on the other hand, there is no reason why dubious and jokes should not form a constituent, as they do in the phrase their dubious jokes.

[42]

■

The head~complement relation

We have now looked at the two-way function/dependency of subject and predi-cate and several examples of the one-way function/dependency of modifier and head. Now look again at the phrase beside a stream (from the sentence Old Sam sunbathed beside a stream) in the light of the discussion in this chapter. Do you recall the structure of the phrase? Draw the phrase marker. How many sister relations are there in the phrase?

[43]

There are two sister relations: (1) at the lowest level of structure, between a and stream, and (2), at the next level up, between beside and PHRASE-b (a stream).

In the last chapter I showed that a is dependent on stream and has its function only in respect of stream. So, beside and a don’t relate to each other either syn-tactically (that is to say, in terms of constituency or function) or semantically (they don’t form a unit of sense). But what kind of relationship holds between beside and PHRASE-b (a stream)? Try to determine whether the relationship is a two-way dependency (both elements obligatory) or whether it is an example

of the one-way dependency of (optional) modifier and (obligatory) head.

You will need to consider the phrase in the context of its sentence.

The way to do this is to see if either of the constituents of the phrase can be omitted individually in the context of the sentence. In fact, neither can be omitted. Both [44] (with beside omitted) and [45] (with a stream omitted) are ungrammatical:

[44] *Old Sam sunbathed a stream [45] *Old Sam sunbathed beside

Although the whole phrase could be omitted from the sentence Old Sam sun-bathed beside a stream, giving Old Sam sunsun-bathed, neither of the constituents of beside a stream can be omitted individually. It seems that beside calls for – requires – the presence of a phrase like a stream and that a stream depends on the presence of beside. It is therefore a two-way dependency; both elements are obligatory in the structure of the phrase beside a stream.

That phrase tells us where the sunbathing took place. It specifies a location.

The location of a thing or an activity is usually expressed by orientating it in space (or time: after the storm, before seven o’clock) in relation to some other thing, activity, event, or time. We can’t express a location just by means of beside;

we have to specify beside what. Although beside and a stream are both needed to express the spatial orientation in this case, it is clearly the word beside that is giving the phrase as a whole its locational character. So beside is the head of the phrase. Now, just as Noun Phrases are named after – have the same category as – their heads (Nouns), we will be naming the whole phrase beside a stream after the category of the word beside. This is dealt with in the next chapter.

We have seen that, unlike the modifier~head relations considered earlier, the relation between beside and a stream is a two-way dependency, with both obligatory. So we need to distinguish between the function of elements that relate to a head in a one-way dependency (i.e. as modifiers) from the function of elements that relate to a head in a two-way dependency. When a head demands a further expression, that further (obligatory) expression is said to comple-ment the head. A stream functions as the complecomple-ment of beside. Notice that a stream doesn’t tell us something about the head (beside) as modifiers do.

What we have here, then, is not the functional relation of modification, but the functional relation of complementation.

Complements typically follow their heads in English. Modifiers can precede or follow their heads, though so far I’ve only given examples of modifiers preceding their heads.

Beside a stream illustrates both these general kinds of dependency. If we were to give a graphic representation of the functional dependencies in that phrase, the mutual dependency of head (H) and complement (C) could be represented by a double arrow as in [46]:

DEPENDENCY AND FUNCTION

[46]

Now look at [47].

[47] Phil dreads affectionate cats.

It’s a sentence – so, overall, it’s an example of the subject~predicate relation. But its predicate includes both a relation of modification and a relation of comple-mentation. Before reading further, first identify the subject and predicate and then try to identify the modifier~head relation and the head~complement relation within the predicate.

Phil is the subject and [dreads affectionate cats] is the predicate. Within the pre-dicate, affectionate can be omitted (Phil dreads cats), so it must be a modifier.

It’s clearly telling us about the cats. So it’s modifying cats. Cats, then, is the head of the phrase [affectionate cats]. Now for the relation between dreads and [affectionate cats]. I hope you agree that neither can be omitted. Neither *Phil affectionate cats nor *Phil dreads is a well-formed sentence. This suggests that the relation between dreads and [affectionate cats] is a (two-way) head~complement dependency. Since heads precede their complements in English, dreads must be the head and [affectionate cats] the complement. There is a more important reason for thinking that dreads is the head. You now know that, as the predicate of the sentence, [dreads affectionate cats] is a Verb Phrase and must there-fore have a Verb as its head. If you didn’t already know, dreads is a verb (this is discussed properly in Chapter 4). These functional dependencies can be represented as in [48]:

[48]

With this example, and throughout the chapter, I have aimed to show how constituency, function, and meaning are interrelated. Giving appropriate ana-lyses of sentences in terms of their constituents depends on how you actually understand those sentences. Constructing the phrase marker of a sentence involves giving an explicit graphic representation of what you intuitively know about that sentence. The meaning of a sentence depends not just on the meaning

of its words, but on how those words are structured into phrases, and on the functions of those words and phrases. If you insist that each sequence of words that you want to say forms a constituent has a well-defined meaning and func-tion (is a phrase), that’s a good starting point for analysis.

Summary

Constituents have their functions in respect of their sisters.

There are three kinds of functional relation between sisters:

Subject~Predicate. The functional relation between the immediate constituents of sentences, Noun Phrase (NP) and Verb Phrase (VP).

It is a mutual (two-way) dependency – S and P are both obligatory.

S precedes P.

Modifier~Head. This is a one-way dependency: modifiers depend on heads.

Modifiers are optional (omissible).

Some modifiers precede and some follow the heads they modify.

Head~Complement. A two-way dependency.

Complements are obligatory, needed to complete the meaning of the phrase.

The head generally precedes its complement.

Heads. The head is the obligatory centre of its phrase.

Every phrase has a head and no more than one head.

The category of the head determines the category of the phrase.

Exercises

1.Identify the subjects and predicates of the following sentences. Remember to apply the question movement test in cases of uncertainty.

(a) No one has ordered my lovely prune-and-spinach fritters.

(b) Her memory for names was a constant source of amazement to him.

(d) Only six of the domino-toppling contestants came properly equipped.

(e) It was Lydia who finally trapped the pig.

(f ) The fact that you received no birthday greetings from Mars doesn’t mean it is uninhabited.

(g) That evening, Laura learned the Health and Safety Regulations by heart.

2.Identify the category of the following phrases (as Noun Phrase, Verb Phrase, or

‘other’).

EXERCISES

(a) installed for only £199.95 (b) were being given away (c) too far to drive in a day (d) obsolescent washing machines

(e) ten long holidays at the Hotel Mortification (f ) which I had bought only the day before

(g) have made me realise that ‘cheap’ does indeed mean ‘nasty’.

3.The phrase more exciting ideas is ambiguous and needs a different structural analysis for each of its two interpretations. Draw the phrase markers, giving an indication of which interpretation goes with which analysis.

4.Draw phrase markers for the following phrases:

(a) young car salesmen; (b) second-hand car salesmen.

5.The phrase the old Romanian history teacher has several different interpretations.

Here are three structural analyses.

(a)

(b) (c)

(1) Which analysis corresponds with the interpretation ‘the old teacher of Romanian history’?

(2) Give the interpretations that correspond with the other analyses.

(3) ‘The history teacher from Old Romania’ is an unlikely interpretation. Never-theless, it is possible to construct a phrase marker that would impose that interpretation on the phrase. Draw the phrase marker.

6.Decide on the functions of the bracketed constituents in the following sentences.

(a) Old Sam sunbathed [beside a stream].

(b) The [well-built] gentleman offered me a cigar.

(d) People in [running kit] are coming from all directions.

To answer this properly, you should not only state the function of the con-stituent but also indicate in respect of what other concon-stituent it has that function. As mentioned in this chapter, you’ll find this much easier if you first make sure you know the general structure of each sentence (i.e. that you can identify the subject NP and the predicate VP). First decide whether the bracketed constituent belongs within the subject or the predicate. Since constituents have their functions in respect of SISTERconstituents, a constituent within the subject can only relate to other constituents within the subject, and a constituent within the predicate to other constituents within that predicate.

7.We have now looked at several of the dependencies in the sentence Old Sam sunbathed beside a stream. From Exercise 6(a) above you should have discovered the function of beside a stream. All that remains is to decide on the function of old.

Do that, and then give a complete representation of all the dependencies in that sentence. Use single and double arrows and M for modifier, H for head, C for complement, S for subject, and P for predicate (as in [48] in the text).

■

Discussion of exercises

1.(a) [No one] [has ordered my lovely prune-and-spinach fritters].

(b) [Her memory for names] [was a constant source of amazement to him].

(c) [There] [are too many uninvited guests here]. As mentioned in the chapter, there doesn’t mention anything. Nevertheless, the question movement test gives a clear result: cf. Are there too many uninvited guests here?

(d) [Only six of the domino-toppling contestants] [came properly equipped]. If you applied the question movement test with this one, you would have had to supply a form of the verb do: Did only six of the domino-toppling contestants come properly equipped?

(e) [It] [was Lydia who finally trapped the pig]. As in (c) above, it is an empty sub-ject, but it undergoes movement in the question (cf. Was it Lydia who finally

In document Analysing Sentences (Page 46-61)